HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.977 of 2013 Date:26.06.2014 Between:
Ganta Tirupati Reddy, S/o China Kotaiah and three others.
And:
Gayam Konda Reddy, S/o Velugonda Reddy and five others.
…… Appellants …… Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Sri M.Ram Mohan Counsel for the respondents: Sri I.Koti Reddy The Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.977 of 2013 JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 05.11.2008, in A.S.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, whereby he has modified the judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2004, in O.S.No.207 of 1999 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili.
The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the above- mentioned suit for perpetual injunction in respect of item Nos.1 to 13 of the suit schedule properties. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has granted injunction in respect of item Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10. Feeling partly aggrieved to the extent of the trial Court declining to grant injunction in respect of item Nos.4, 7, 8, 9, 11 to 13 of the suit schedule properties, the appellants have filed AS.No.8 of 2004 before the lower appellate Court and the respondents herein filed Cross-Objections in the said appeal. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the lower appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants by passing decree of injunction in respect of all items except item Nos.9 and 11. The plaintiffs filed the present Second Appeal questioning the judgment of the lower appellate Court to the extent of denying injunction in respect of item Nos.9 and 11 of the suit schedule properties.
On a careful consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has assigned sound reasons in partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs by granting permanent injunction in respect item Nos.4, 7, 8, 12 and 13 and refused to grant injunction in respect of item Nos.9 and 11.
As the questions raised by the appellants purely fall in the realm of the disputed questions of fact, no substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. Indeed, this Court has dismissed Second Appeal No.1011 of 2013 filed by the respondents herein/defendants with liberty to them to file a substantive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well- considered judgment of the lower appellate Court declining injunction in respect of item Nos.9 and 11 of the suit schedule properties.
The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
26th June, 2014 DR